LGR4GM Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Speaking of Roy, is it the assumption that he will be 100% come training camp? Not much has been said about his injury. He has to be very far along the recovery path since he played in game 7. The bigger concern will have to be Pominville. I think that Roy showed in game 7 that he was capable of playing again and that the problem there looked more like conditioning and figuring out the flow of the game again. I would guess by the time the season starts he should be back to 100% and also, Missing a chunk of the season may have help Derek learn a thing or two about the team. Roy i feel has finally grown up but we will have to wait and see. At least now Robyn Regehr is in the dressing room to knock heads together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think that Roy showed in game 7 that he was capable of playing again and that the problem there looked more like conditioning and figuring out the flow of the game again. I would guess by the time the season starts he should be back to 100% and also, Missing a chunk of the season may have help Derek learn a thing or two about the team. Roy i feel has finally grown up but we will have to wait and see. At least now Robyn Regehr is in the dressing room to knock heads together. I wonder if watching the prices of centers going through the roof will be additional motivation. A year from now the main topic might be a Derek Roy extension. A season of 25-30 goals and 70-80 points can make Roy a very wealthy man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I agree one often can be had at the trade deadline, even Zubrus who adjusted as fast as any, trade deadline deals really haven't worked out well for the Sabres. It seems in this system, guys coming in need time to work on the system chemistry, so if the Sabres are going to go after someone they should do so earlier in the season imo so that some adjust time can be factored in. I'd rather see them bring a center in earlier in the year. I'm on record as stating I think they'll make a trade this summer or early in the year. But I'm thinking that trade would be for more of a 1st line center type. (Or more likely another #2 center and then the Sabres go back to an out of the lockout type look.) Whether that trade ends up for a true #3 would be more dependent upon how expensive the 4 remaining RFA's that'd make the 21-23 man roster end up. There might only be room on the bus for a Talbot level contract. And if they don't bring in a #3 (either due to trading for a #1/2 earlier in the year, or not finding a trade they like) by the deadline, #3's will be available. I believe a significant portion of trade deadline deals 'not really working out' has had a lot more to do w/ the 'all trades will net out a salary wash' constraint that they were working under and an unwritten rule that these guys would not be brought back for another season in the post lockout world. If you are always planning on making trades of current assets for current assets, they can't really send you over the top unless you get really lucky or are in the position to trade a backup goalie (that you wouldn't normally use in the playoffs and rarely would use down the stretch) for a player that would get into the lineup regularly. Deadline & late season deals in the past (Gilmour & Dumont, Heinze, Barnes, Audette, Briere, just to name a few) have oftentimes worked out. Had Moore not broken his wrist, I believe he would have been useful, and I definitely wanted him back. He's very versatile and can play any spot on your 2nd or (preferably) 3rd line and is a natural center (kind of the mirror image of Jochen). Zubrus was working out until injuries. But with no intention of re-signing him, the deal naturally looks worse than it was. He has to be very far along the recovery path since he played in game 7. The bigger concern will have to be Pominville. And that's how Kotalik might get some playing time. Have Pominville on the initial roster and BF-LTIR him and then they can afford Ales on the big club if he earns inclusion on it and Pomms can't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Torres is a glaring example of it not working out, but all from what I remember each had an adjustment period that wasn't completed until the year after the deadline. Zubrus imo had one of the fastest adjustments until he got hurt and seemed to be coming into his own in the playoffs. Not resigning him I think was a big mistake, but water under the bridge. That being said, adjustments from trade deadline deals are problematic for success that season because players need time to adjust and should imo be made earlier in the year to have a better impact on the team. Would love to actually look at some stats on this because what I am stating is opinion only and as such hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 What's the window on Doughty and Stamkos? Is there a limited amount of time their clubs have before they can seek out other teams? I thought i heard 15 days to issue qualifying offers regarding our own UFA's but i wasn't sure if that applied to them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 What's the window on Doughty and Stamkos? Is there a limited amount of time their clubs have before they can seek out other teams? I thought i heard 15 days to issue qualifying offers regarding our own UFA's but i wasn't sure if that applied to them as well. They can already field offers from other teams, as they ARE free agents.. just restricted free agents. If they accept an offer from another team, LA/TB will have the right to match that contract or let them walk and receive compensation (which will likely be 4 first rounders for each of them). The qualifying offers were handed out to RFA's and had to be tendered prior to July 1st (deadline may have been a few days earlier, I'm not sure). RFA's don't have to accept the qualifying offer, and can either negotiate or elect arbitration for a better deal, but they must be "tendered" to remain that cubs property. For example, we chose NOT to submit a qualifying offer to Mark Mancari, who then became a UFA on July 1st and signed with Vancouver. But we did tender a qualifying offer to Sekera, who remains an unsigned RFA, but still our property. I believe the only stipulation is that if a RFA doesn't accept his qualifying offer and isn't signed by any club by December 1st, they will become UFA next season. Could be wrong on that so CBA experts feel free to verify or correct me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warriorspikes51 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 If this team gets someone who has chemistry with Van and is capable of being a top center, we are a Cup contender without question. That someone could be Leino or it could be someone we'll trade for who hasn't been mentioned on the boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 If this team gets someone who has chemistry with Van and is capable of being a top center, we are a Cup contender without question. That someone could be Leino or it could be someone we'll trade for who hasn't been mentioned on the boards. very perceptive... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 very perceptive... :rolleyes: Sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I've said it before. We don't need a 3rd line center. Gaustad & McCormick fill the bill for now. I think if they trade for a 1st line center it would cost Ennis + or Vanek +. I'm all for trading Vanek in that instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Sarcasm? yes, mostly directed towards the "it's either leino or someone we'll trade for" train of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I've said it before. We don't need a 3rd line center. Gaustad & McCormick fill the bill for now. I think if they trade for a 1st line center it would cost Ennis + or Vanek +. I'm all for trading Vanek in that instance. You would rather keep Ennis than Vanek? Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 You would rather keep Ennis than Vanek? Hmmmm. Absolutely. If Ennis fulfills his promise, I see him as being more effective than Vanek, although a totally different kind of player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm kinda off the bandwagon of wanting a number 1 center. I'm thinking back to Briere/Drury and I think thats the best way to go. By that I mean instead of trying to get a top line center get a solid 2nd line center and have them and roy be the new 2a/2b like Briere/Drury did. imo if we do that and then pencil in Lieno as a 3rd line center I think we would be very deadly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.